Search

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer is associated with low median overall survival. Combination chemotherapy regimens FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel (GemNab) are the new adjuvant treatment standards for resectable pancreatic cancer. PRODIGE-24 and APACT trials demonstrated superior clinical outcomes with FOLFIRINOX and GemNab, each vs gemcitabine monotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of FOLFIRINOX vs GemNab for resectable pancreatic cancer in adults from the U.S. payer perspective, in order to inform decision makers about which of these treatments is optimal. METHODS: A Markov model with 3 disease states (relapse free, progressive disease, and death) was developed. Cycle length was 1 month, and time horizon was 10 years. Transition probabilities were derived from PRODIGE-24 and APACT survival data. All cost and utility input parameters were obtained from published literature. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to obtain total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years (LYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). A 3% annual discount rate was applied to costs and outcomes. The effect of uncertainty on model parameters was assessed with 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). RESULTS: Our analysis estimated that the cost for FOLFIRINOX was $40,831 higher than GemNab ($99,669 vs. $58,837). Despite increased toxicity, FOLFIRINOX was associated with additional 0.18 QALYs and 0.25 LYs compared with GemNab (QALY: 1.65 vs. 1.47; LY: 2.09 vs. 1.84). The ICER for FOLFIRINOX vs GemNab was $226,841 per QALY and $163,325 per LY. FOLFIRINOX was not cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $200,000 per QALY, and this was confirmed by the PSA. CONCLUSIONS: Total monthly cost for FOLFIRINOX was approximately 1.7 times higher than GemNab. If the WTP threshold increases to or above $250,000 per QALY, FOLFIRINOX then becomes a cost-effective treatment option. DISCLOSURES: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Purpose: The addition of bevacizumab to fluorouracil-based chemotherapy is a standard of care for previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. Continuation of bevacizumab beyond progression is an accepted standard of care based on a 1.4-month increase in median overall survival observed in a randomized trial. No United States-based cost-effectiveness modeling analyses are currently available addressing the use of bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer. Our objective was to determine the cost effectiveness of bevacizumab in the first-line setting and when continued beyond progression from the perspective of US payers., Methods: We developed two Markov models to compare the cost and effectiveness of fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin with or without bevacizumab in the first-line treatment and subsequent fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan with or without bevacizumab in the second-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Model robustness was addressed by univariable and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Health outcomes were measured in life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)., Results: Using bevacizumab in first-line therapy provided an additional 0.10 QALYs (0.14 life-years) at a cost of $59,361. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $571,240 per QALY. Continuing bevacizumab beyond progression provided an additional 0.11 QALYs (0.16 life-years) at a cost of $39,209. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $364,083 per QALY. In univariable sensitivity analyses, the variables with the greatest influence on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were bevacizumab cost, overall survival, and utility., Conclusion: Bevacizumab provides minimal incremental benefit at high incremental cost per QALY in both the first- and second-line settings of metastatic colorectal cancer treatment., (© 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

The objective of this study was to evaluate the real-world cost effectiveness of adjuvant stage III colon cancer chemotherapy regimens, given that previous analyses have been based on data from clinical trials. The study was designed using integrated decision tree and Markov model, which was developed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV), capecitabine, and the combination of each with oxaliplatin. The analysis was performed from a US Veterans Affairs perspective via retrospectively collected data, over a 5-year model time horizon. Outcome and cost data were used to calculate cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY), and one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. In the base case analysis, capecitabine and capecitabine plus oxaliplatin both cost more and were less effective than other regimens, and 5-FU/LV plus oxaliplatin, compared to 5-FU/LV alone, resulted in a cost of $25,997 per QALY gained. Model results were generally robust to parameter variation. Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin could be economically reasonable if full dosing occurred ≥76% of the time (base case 42%). In a real-world setting, the addition of oxaliplatin to 5-FU/LV is more effective but also more costly than 5-FU/LV alone. If full dosing of capecitabine-containing regimens can be assured, they may also be cost-effective strategies.

Background: Although colorectal cancer screening is cost-effective, it requires a considerable net investment by governments or insurance companies. If screening was cost saving, governments and insurance companies might be more inclined to invest in colorectal cancer screening programs. We examined whether colorectal cancer screening would become cost saving with the widespread use of the newer, more expensive chemotherapies., Methods: We used the MISCAN-Colon microsimulation model to assess whether widespread use of new chemotherapies would affect the treatment savings of colorectal cancer screening in the general population. We considered three scenarios for chemotherapy use: the past, the present, and the near future. We assumed that survival improved and treatment costs for patients diagnosed with advanced stages of colorectal cancer increased over the scenarios. Screening strategies considered were annual guaiac fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), annual immunochemical FOBT, sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, colonoscopy every 10 years, and the combination of sigmoidoscopy every 5 years and annual guaiac FOBT. Analyses were conducted from the perspective of the health-care system for a cohort of 50-year-old individuals who were at average risk of colorectal cancer and were screened with 100% adherence from age 50 years to age 80 years and followed up until death., Results: Compared with no screening, the treatment savings from preventing advanced colorectal cancer and colorectal cancer deaths by screening more than doubled with the widespread use of new chemotherapies. The lifetime average treatment savings were larger than the lifetime average screening costs for screening with Hemoccult II, immunochemical FOBT, sigmoidoscopy, and the combination of sigmoidoscopy and Hemoccult II (average savings vs costs per individual in the population: Hemoccult II, $1398 vs $859; immunochemical FOBT, $1756 vs $1565; sigmoidoscopy, $1706 vs $1575; sigmoidoscopy and Hemoccult II $1931 vs $1878). Colonoscopy did not become cost saving, but the total net costs of this strategy decreased from $1317 to $296 per individual in the population., Conclusions: With the increase in chemotherapy costs for advanced colorectal cancer, most colorectal cancer screening strategies have become cost saving. As a consequence, screening is a desirable approach not only to reduce colorectal cancer incidence and mortality but also to control the costs of colorectal cancer treatment.

Background: The costs of infusion versus bolus administration of chemotherapy has been a point of controversy as has been the method of quantitating the cost. The present study analyzes the reimbursement for chemotherapy administration by infusion compared with bolus delivery based on reimbursement and relates this to cost based on projected charges and actual charges in a private practice setting., Methods: Actual reimbursement records were retrieved for selected patients receiving infusion or bolus administration of specific chemotherapy regimens for three tumors: colon carcinoma, breast carcinoma, and lymphoma. All services were included except for radiology and hospitalization. Medicare reimbursement represented 90% of the treatment cycles analyzed., Results: Actual reimbursement per month for each infusion regimen was as follows: colon carcinoma, $528 (5-fluorouracil [5-FU]); breast carcinoma, $621 (doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide [AC]) and $685 (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil [CMF]); and lymphoma, $603 (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone [CHOP]). Actual reimbursement per month for a bolus regimen was colon carcinoma, $393 (5-FU + leucovorin); breast carcinoma, $991 (AC) or $453 (CMF); and lymphoma, $749 (CHOP). Actual reimbursement represents 21-36% of actual charges. Projected charges based on the model system are generally less than the actual charges., Conclusions: The cost of chemotherapy as defined by reimbursement are substantially less than actual charges and are also less than projected costs based on charges. Data comparing bolus versus infusion reimbursement costs for colon carcinoma, breast carcinoma, and lymphoma indicate that differences between reimbursement for bolus and infusion administration are not substantial.